https://kansasagconnection.com/news/export-challenges-for-kansas-sorghum 

Kansas is grappling with a significant agricultural challenge following the recent shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. The closure includes the Food for Peace program, a critical initiative for disposing of agricultural surpluses while combating global hunger. This program has historically been a vital market for Kansas's sorghum farmers.

The impact on Kansas agriculture is profound. Sorghum, commonly known as milo, is a major crop in the state, known for its resilience and lower water needs, which is crucial given the ongoing depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer.

However, with the end of Food for Peace, which facilitated the export of surplus sorghum to international markets, local farmers and grain elevator operators like those at the Pawnee County co-op are facing a dire situation. The co-op's storage facilities are filling up, with no immediate relief in sight as both export and domestic markets have evaporated.

The consequences extend beyond storage issues. The financial implications are severe, with potential losses not just for farmers but for the entire agricultural supply chain in Kansas. The program's termination is expected to exacerbate the already challenging economic conditions for sorghum producers, possibly leading to financial instability and increased operational difficulties.

Furthermore, the political ramifications are significant. Local leaders and agricultural advocates are voicing concerns about the broader economic and humanitarian impacts of discontinuing USAID's food aid. Without these essential services, not only do local markets suffer, but global food security may also be at risk, affecting international relations and trade. 

US Aid was championed by WW 2 Veterans in the 1950s after witnessing first hand.. how reparations at the end of WW 1.  Were the root causes which lead to WW 2.

Instead of punishing Germany and Japan.. we helped them rebuild under the Marshall plan.. which instead of WW 3.. lead to prosperity for all.

Why are we turning backwards now?

Im not a big Atlantic fan but this piece makes a person think.. Why are we tearing prosperity down?

So we can go back to farming blow sand with a disk?

 https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/04/trump-tariffs-economic-vision/682433/?utm_source=msn 

The typical pattern for economic development involves moving a nation’s economy up the value chain. A poor country develops export markets by specializing in low-wage manufacturing. Eventually, these industries develop higher levels of sophistication, adding more intellectual value—first they build toasters and cameras, then cars, then robots. These industries generate tax revenue that can support better schools and other forms of public investment, feeding back into the developmental cycle. That’s how the “Asian tigers” (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) enjoyed rapid economic growth over the past two generations, and it’s the pattern other developing countries are hoping to follow.

Donald Trump is basically running this play in reverse.

The tariffs, while putatively intended to promote industrialization, have the more direct impact of directing American production back into industrial inputs. Trump has raised tariffs on metals, which makes building things more expensive but creates an incentive to reshore the production of steel and aluminum. This moves the industrial economy down the value chain, rather than up, which makes sense only if the objective is to have an economy with more guys wearing hard hats.

For what? 

$3500 stoves? 

Obama thought it was a good idea to destroy the used car market.. “cash for clunkers.”  

Now pickups cost $80,000

this is progress..  How will you afford a pickup when there’s no market for what you produce yourself?

farming sorghum.. with a disk.. to buy an $80,000 pickup.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2oalinPCZo   

The interesting question, and the question I want to explore with you today, is why is it that interference with international trade has been so widespread, despite the almost uniform condemnation of such measures by economists?

Why is it that you have the professional agreement on the one side, and observe practice on the other which departs so sharply from that agreement?

The political reason is fairly straightforward. The political reason is that the interests that press for protection are concentrated. The people who are harmed by protection are spread and diffused.

Indeed the very language shows the political pressure. We call a tariff a protective measure. It does protect; it protects the consumer very well against one thing.

It protects the consumer against low prices. And yet we call it protection.